DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the proceeding is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Richmond County, for further proceedings.
The petitioner and the respondent cohabited in New York State for 3 1/2 years, during which time the petitioner gave birth to two children. The petitioner then moved to the State of Washington, married, and changed the children's last names to that of her new husband. About 10 years later, following the petitioner's separation from her husband, a petition was filed against the respondent seeking to establish, inter alia, paternity and child support for the petitioner's children. The Family Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
In light of the circumstances of this case, the denial of the request of the petitioner, a resident of another state, to testify using a telephone, audiovisual hookup, or other electronic means pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, was an improvident exercise of the court's discretion (see Family Ct Act § 580-316[f]).
Contrary to the respondent's contention, while the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable in paternity proceedings where it is invoked to further the best interests of the child (see Matter of Charles v. Charles,
296 A.D.2d 547, 549; Matter of Alberto T. v. Tammy D.,
274 A.D.2d 587; John R. v. Lynn R.,
260 A.D.2d 459, 460; Fung v. Fung,
238 A.D.2d 375, 376; Matter of Ettore I. v. Angela D.,
127 A.D.2d 6, 14), it generally is not available to a party seeking to disavow the allegation of parenthood for the purpose of avoiding child support (see Ocasio v. Ocasio,
276 A.D.2d 680; Brian B. v. Dionne B.,
267 A.D.2d 188; cf. Matter of Mobley v. Ishmael,
285 A.D.2d 648; Matter of Cleophus P. v. Latrice M.R.,
299 A.D.2d 936).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.